Skip to comments.Sotomayor Guns For 2nd Amendment (CORRECTED)
Posted on 06/05/2009 5:14:41 AM PDT by WhiteCastle
(Corrected) Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities. High court nominee Sonia Sotomayor concurs.Those Pennsylvania townsfolk bitterly clinging to their guns may have been premature in celebrating the decision in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
That will be even a bigger issue than the “hispanic latina” comment. The Democrats from red states will not be happy to have to vote for someone who so clearly wants to take away the right to bear arms.
She’s going to torque off both sides if the issue is properly pressed now. As part of the 2nd Circuit, she recently ruled that the 2ndA only applies to the feds - and in doing so acknowledged that, indeed, it forbids the ability of the federal government to limit RKBA. Ergo, she will be faced with either hugely backpedaling on a very clear official statement (very embarassing), else will have to remain consistent and overturn HR45, AWB II, 922(o), NFA, etc.
So, perversely, at least in theory she’s a great pick for the NRA types, having talked herself into a corner. And this is how we’ll ultimately win RKBA back: talk ‘em into a corner using their own words.
“the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to states and cities”
As far as I recall, it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” á la the first amendment. It simply says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To me, that means it won’t be infringed by anyone. ‘Cause the Constitution doesn’t just tell the federal government what it can and can’t do; it also tells the states what they can’t do.
Then there’s the whole “incorporation” thing, which is BS, but is well-established.
Yes it is... The Constitution never mentions the word "incorporation."
The Constituion never mentions "education" or "marriage" either...
I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.
Obviously the Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well.
Funny this stuff comes from a liberal court when it has been the liberal courts that applied federal laws to the states (equal opportunity, school busing, etc.) to bring about their version of life in these United States.
But now federal courts have no say in the matter of the 2nd Amendment?
“None of these comments gets to what I believe to be the point.
I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that if the Constitution does not apply to the states, then states may forbid freedom of speech, forbid arms, change contracts at their whim, jail political enemies, ....on and on.”
The comment about “incorporation” gets to the point you raise exactly. That’s what it means, that the states have been incorporated into the Bill of Rights by the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th amendment. I still consider it to be BS, because neither equal protection nor due process imply anything of the sort. All they require is that everyone within a state be governed by the same laws and same legal processes, or if they are discriminated against it is in a fair and rational manner and not based on race, etc.
Anyway, one of the things you mention, changing contracts at whim, is specifically denied to the states in Article One. We call it “the contract clause”. It says, “No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” So you see, the Constitution often tells the states not to do stuff. Which is what they’re doing with the 2nd amendment, in my opinion.
The first amendment is a different matter. States ought not to be constrained by the amendments which refer to the federal government, like, you know, when it comes out and says “Congress shall make no law...” infringing upon so and so rights. If we don’t want state governments to restrict speech or establish a religion, we should either amend the Constitution or write that into state constitutions (they have ‘em too, darn it!)
I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates. The Constitution obviously applied to state and local governments then, to say that it doesn’t apply now flies in the face of all reason!
(Corrected) Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities.It's not as simple as the article makes it to be - as above or in the article body.
Whatever was written in the decision, the bottom line, fall back position was 'starry decide us' /s. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled 'collective right' and there was no way it would overturn itself, so it punted, then they all went to dinner. /s
The 'funny thing' is that the Precedent the 7th used used (stary decisis) was a challenge to Morton Grove, IL's gun ban. Morton Grove was the first city to ban handguns, then Chicago and others followed suit. Now here's the funny part --
The day after Heller came down Morton Grove Repealed Its Gun Ban Law. They knew this would it wind up in SCOTUS and didn't want to waste its taxpayers money on a losing cause.So Chicago will fight on to SCOTUS. Spending money it already doesn't have, all to make the psycho Mayor Daley feel like he is still all powerful in his Kingdom, and has a big wiener. (If he could he'd be driving a Corvette or Ferrari to compensate)
as to Oak Park, screw em. They're a bunch of ex hippies who've raised a bunch of quiche eating, sandal wearing, Volvo driving, ultra-über lib moonbats. They deserve what they get.
The writers failed miserably, to foresee the complete loss of common sense in the population, especially in the legal system.
Lot of new friends to make here.
Wow, didn't that just get thrown out the window with GM, and Chrysler?
George Wallace a sitting Governor threatened with arrest?
Eisenhower Federalizing the National Guard in Arkansas.
Voting Rights acts that only applied to Southern states.
Why stop now?
“The requested document does not exist on this server.”
“Wow, didn’t that just get thrown out the window with GM, and Chrysler?”
Oh, but the bondholders agreed to it willingly. Or...uh...35% of them did. We didn’t pressure them or anything.
As for the AIG executives, we scared them a little with pitchforks and vague criminal charges. But it wasn’t at the point of a gun...literally.
“I can well remember federal forces converging in the South to enforce civil rights mandates.”
Actually, the federals came to enforce their sovereignty against rebel usurpers. It wasn’t about anyone’s civil rights until at least two years in. And even that was more about strategy and PR. The real civil rights reckoning came in the usual Constitutional way, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
“The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled ‘collective right’”
“Collective right,” pishaw. Is there a collective right to free speech? Like I have to get my entire town to sign off before I can post my blog?
The amendments have to actually be incorporated. It wasn’t done on a whole sale basis. The second is one that notably hasn’t been incorporated.
I have seen some people say that Easterbrook and Posner are using this decision as cert bait to get the SC to incorporate it.
“The amendments have to actually be incorporated. It wasnt done on a whole sale basis. The second is one that notably hasnt been incorporated.”
That doesn’t make much sense. I mean, I understand that it has to be decided before it’s decided, but isn’t it a fait accompli? I mean, if some amendments have been incorporated, because of substantive due process or what-have-you, how can others not be?
I still maintain that the second amendment, unlike the first, doesn’t say anything about Congress, and since the Constitution has several passages where it denies powers to the states, it can be so interpreted that the right to bear arms restricts the states as much as the feds, incorporation be damned.
“how can others not be?”
Inevitably, I mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.